Is the team underachieving

Is the team underachieving


  • Total voters
    41
#2
Are you like some Maloof market researcher or something? ALL your threads consist of one line questions/posts and a poll.
 
K

KingMilz

Guest
#4
I would be happy with a 35-40 win season so atm 4-10 is not on track to achieve that adn that target is not looking like its gonna happend
 
#7
You could say that and you would be right. You can make a case that most teams underachieve unless they go well into the playoffs. The coach is the convenient target and deserves some blame. So do Petrie and the owners. But ultimately so do the players. The Kings now have a culture of losing. The referees treat them like losers. It will be harder to change the longer it goes on. The current team is probably as talented as any in the last 5 years. That is what makes watching them lose to average teams at home so difficult. Remember when guys like Beno were the leading scorers? Many former Kings players have gone on to successful careers somewhere else.
 
#9
The team wouldn't be achieving much more with a bigger name coach. It is improperly constructed. I wish fans would realize this. The whining about Smart feels like desperation to avoid the real issue of the owners and just how ugly they are willing to let things get in order to get their way.
 
#10
Is not underachieving due to lack of talent. Really its all interlinked. Kings have bad owners who consistently are among the lowest payrolls, Petrie is past his prime, and the coach is not nba calibure. However, the Kings don't have a clear all-star quality player on their roster (given present form), and any team that you can say that about will fight to sniff the playoffs
 
#11
The team wouldn't be achieving much more with a bigger name coach.
i dont think thats true at all. have u watched the games? so many of them have been lost just sheerly on mismanaging the lineups. even a decent coach like McMillen, or Scotty Brooks (who we should have hired when we had him here on the staff) would have this team at a .500 record at least


yes i agree the team is not constructed well (too many shoot first guards and not enough rebounding or shot blocking). but that doesnt mean they still arent losing games due to bad coaching
 
L

LWP777

Guest
#12
I voted for NOT underachieving due to lack of talent but having pieces that do not fit is also a big factor. While Keith Smart is a terrible coach, the talent on this roster is HIGHLY overrated by most posters here. Let's have a look:

Cousins: Talented but not at the Hall of Fame level that most here feel he is. He can do some special things for a big man but he negates that with a ton of negative things on and off the court.

Evans: A solid NBA player but probably not going to improve a whole lot from here on out

Robinson: Our most raw talented player but most felt he was "NBA ready" out of college but I think we are seeing that is not the case.

Jimmer: He can shoot the basketball but not capable of a lot after that

JT: Average NBA role player who starts and gets big minutes with us

Salmons: Might not even be in the league if it wasn't for GP's love affair with him. Starts and plays big minutes for us.

JJ: Marginal NBA player who is having a hard time getting playing time at an extremely weak position for us

IT: Nice find in the 2nd round but nothing more than a backup PG

Brooks: Unnecessary pickup who doesn't offer a lot lot more than was IT's role should have been

Hayes: Great guy, good locker room guy but an extremely undersized PF/C who would have a small or no role on a winning team

Thornton: Solid NBA player but not overly talented and is having a terrible start to the season

Cisco: Do I need to even go here?

Outlaw: See above

So when you really look at it, where is all this talent that everybody thinks we have? Talent usually finds a way to win in the NBA and this group isn't getting it done. Sure a better coach would help but we are nowhere near being a playoff team.

Blow it up!!
 
L

LWP777

Guest
#13
i dont think thats true at all. have u watched the games? so many of them have been lost just sheerly on mismanaging the lineups. even a decent coach like McMillen, or Scotty Brooks (who we should have hired when we had him here on the staff) would have this team at a .500 record at least


yes i agree the team is not constructed well (too many shoot first guards and not enough rebounding or shot blocking). but that doesnt mean they still arent losing games due to bad coaching
NO chance. A .500 team? Are you serious? We are 4-10. You think a decent coach would have netted us 3 more wins? Coaching at this level is important but it's not going to get you 75% more wins than you currently have.
 
#14
i do agree with all of the player analysis on the above post

i dont mind blowing it up either. but id like to see Tyreke, Marcus, and DMC stay. build from there
 
#15
NO chance. A .500 team? Are you serious? We are 4-10. You think a decent coach would have netted us 3 more wins? Coaching at this level is important but it's not going to get you 75% more wins than you currently have.
counter question: do you think the current success of the Bobcats is purely a product of MKG?
 
#16
NO chance. A .500 team? Are you serious? We are 4-10. You think a decent coach would have netted us 3 more wins? Coaching at this level is important but it's not going to get you 75% more wins than you currently have.
um ya, did you watch all the games? right off that bat i can think of the Utah game and the CHI game that was lost completely by benching the starters (mainly Tyreke) for WAY too long. so right there thats already 6-8. u think a decent coach wouldnt also have this team sharing the ball. im sure they would have easily been at 7-7 right now with proper minutes and lineup management alone. not to mention running a real offense
 
L

LWP777

Guest
#17
um ya, did you watch all the games? right off that bat i can think of the Utah game and the CHI game that was lost completely by benching the starters (mainly Tyreke) for WAY too long. so right there thats already 6-8. u think a decent coach wouldnt also have this team sharing the ball. im sure they would have easily been at 7-7 right now with proper minutes and lineup management alone. not to mention running a real offense
While I agree that his rotations are ridiculous there is no guarantee that by simply putting the starters back in would have given us 3+ more wins. It's not like our starters are All-Stars. This is the NBA. Other teams starters are generally better than ours anyways and they would have stepped up to the competition. Who really knows what would have happened.

It's kind of like how on this current homestand a lot of posters here have talked about how we should easily win most of the games because we are playing the likes of Minnesota, Indiana, Toronto, Orlando, etc. but the funny thing is all those teams look at us as a win as well. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
 
#18
look at the Utah game the very next night after the coach ruined the 4th quarter, against the very same team. almost the same situation in the 4th but Smart brings Tyreke in with 8 minutes left and the kings finished the game out easily. the night before would have probably been the same way
 
Last edited:
L

LWP777

Guest
#19
counter question: do you think the current success of the Bobcats is purely a product of MKG?
He has certainly helped, yes, but they have had an extremely soft schedule the first 14 games. I would expect them to end up around 25-28 wins on the season
 
#20
counter question: do you think the current success of the Bobcats is purely a product of MKG?
But the MKG is not the only difference between Bobcats now and last season. They revamped over 60% of their rotation - Augustin gone, Derrick Brown gone, Tyrus Thomas injured (addition by subtraction); added Ramon Session, Ben Gordon, and Haywood; moved Biyambo to off the bench, moved Walker, Jeff Taylor, Haywood, and MKG into the starting lineup. They have four new starters compared to last season, plus a completely new bench.

Also, MKG is the ultimate glue guy. He does so many things that doesn't show up in the boxscore, any team that has him would immediately improves.

As LWP777 said, the Bobcats also benefited from a friendly schedule.
 
#21
look at the Utah game the very next night after the coach ruined the 4th quarter, against the very same team. almost the same situation in the 4th but Smart brings Tyreke in with 8 minutes left and the kings finished the game out easily. the night before would have probably been the same way
That's sugar coating it. Tyreke shot a poor 7 for 17 in that game and looks out of gas and forcing horrible shots by the end of the 3rd quarter. I was watching the game on league pass and even the Jazz's announcer said Evans looks dead tired out there.
 
#22
ya another mismanagement by Smart. Tyreke was the best player on both sides of the floor, plain and simple. he should have been pulled with 2-3 minutes left in the 3rd, and put back in with 8-9 left in the 4th. and we win
 
#23
While I agree that his rotations are ridiculous there is no guarantee that by simply putting the starters back in would have given us 3+ more wins. It's not like our starters are All-Stars. This is the NBA. Other teams starters are generally better than ours anyways and they would have stepped up to the competition. Who really knows what would have happened.

It's kind of like how on this current homestand a lot of posters here have talked about how we should easily win most of the games because we are playing the likes of Minnesota, Indiana, Toronto, Orlando, etc. but the funny thing is all those teams look at us as a win as well. It's all in the eye of the beholder.
this is just repeating things that have been discussed to death on this board, but: the thing is that in-game management on its own has cost the Kings several games, enough for us in all likelihood to be at .500 if it weren't for those. this doesn't even account for the less than adequate system Smart has been running. just imagine where this team might be, had Smart started running that Reke-DMC two-man game last year instead of just lately.

or for the fact that those rotation/lineup disasters have a massive impact on the development of the players. just as much as his "I don't believe in defining roles" approach. there is a reason other teams perceive the Kings as a disfunctional mess, they are, I wouldn't put all the blame for that on the players, who are mostly young and directionless. these kinds of players need a clear cut system, defined roles and so on. no Westphalian read and react offense, no Smartish "they need to figure it out themselves".

all successfull young teams of the last few years had that, be it OKC with Brooks or Chicago with Thibs. more importantly, both of those teams took a massive step forward once the rather incompetent predecessors of those coaches were fired. this could've happened here, too. McMillan, who, iirc, is one of the best coaches there is at managing lineups/rotations and definitely one of the best at getting the most out of young talent, was right there last offseason. but I digress, bad management has of course compounded the mess that is this team, but that is neither here nor there.

But the MKG is not the only difference between Bobcats now and last season. They revamped over 60% of their rotation - Augustin gone, Derrick Brown gone, Tyrus Thomas injured (addition by subtraction); added Ramon Session, Ben Gordon, and Haywood; moved Biyambo to off the bench, moved Walker, Jeff Taylor, Haywood, and MKG into the starting lineup. They have four new starters compared to last season, plus a completely new bench.

Also, MKG is the ultimate glue guy. He does so many things that doesn't show up in the boxscore, any team that has him would immediately improves.

As LWP777 said, the Bobcats also benefited from a friendly schedule.
fair points. maybe the Bobcats aren't the best example for solely a coach turning it around. although I maintain that Dunlap has been a very positive influence and they stick out, because they had already matched last seasons win total 12 games in. anyway, OKC and Chicago then as examples.
 

rainmaker

Hall of Famer
#24
That's sugar coating it. Tyreke shot a poor 7 for 17 in that game and looks out of gas and forcing horrible shots by the end of the 3rd quarter. I was watching the game on league pass and even the Jazz's announcer said Evans looks dead tired out there.
There's bepop, only telling half the story.

If you're bringing up the Jazz announcers in that game, also bring up that they were wondering where the hell Reke was later on in the 4th and said Reke had been killing them all night. I watched the Utah telecast that night too.
 

Capt. Factorial

This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things
Staff member
#25
NO chance. A .500 team? Are you serious? We are 4-10. You think a decent coach would have netted us 3 more wins? Coaching at this level is important but it's not going to get you 75% more wins than you currently have.
You may overestimate how easy it is to flip a game or two. For instance, when people started pointing out the foul differential a few games ago (which was getting pretty obvious to the eye) I went through for myself and calculated the pythagorean win percentage for the Kings if they were even with their opponents on FTA. I think the team went from 2-7 to 5-4. So a swing like that isn't unsurmountable by small tweaks.
 
#26
There's bepop, only telling half the story.

If you're bringing up the Jazz announcers in that game, also bring up that they were wondering where the hell Reke was later on in the 4th and said Reke had been killing them all night. I watched the Utah telecast that night too.
I did not hear the Utah announcer wondered where Tyreke was and did not hear they said he was killing them all night. I did hear that they said expect Smart to put Tyreke in the game during the 4th and added that Reke is a very talented player who can get hot. In effect, they said nothing.

Now, in the 3rd quarter after Tyreke scored a few buckets, they did say something to the effect: Tyreke Evans did it again! He's so good going to the rim! But that was before Tyreke got really tired towards the end of the 3rd.
 
Last edited:
#27
I did not hear the Utah announcer wondered where Tyreke was and did not hear they said he was killing them all night. I did hear that they said expect Smart to put Tyreke in the game during the 4th and added that Reke is a very talented player who can get hot. In effect, they said nothing.

Now, in the 3rd quarter after Tyreke scored a few buckets, they did say something to the effect: Tyreke Evans did it again! He's so good going to the rim! But that was before Tyreke got really tired towards the end of the 3rd.
So if a player is tired you need to rest him for 9 minutes of game time? Which amounts to what .. 15 actual minutes total?
 
#28
That's sugar coating it. Tyreke shot a poor 7 for 17 in that game and looks out of gas and forcing horrible shots by the end of the 3rd quarter. I was watching the game on league pass and even the Jazz's announcer said Evans looks dead tired out there.
Talk about selective memory. They started talking about lack of Evans around the middle of the 4th, when Jazz put their starters back in. And then Harpring said about Evans killing them the whole night. You have LP, go take a look.
 
#30
As i recall Tyreke didn't do anything positive when he came back in. I am sure that is coach Smart's fault though.
True, but you just sat a guy for 15 minutes - he's going to come in cold. That's on both of them. But as far as blaming Smart goes, we shouldn't even have been at a point where our lead got cut by so much. If Smart puts Tyreke and our starters back in with 6-7 minutes to go and us up about 8, and we still go on to lose the game, nobody is going to say that Smart's rotations cost us the game.